Socialism or Progressivism is a diverse political ideology, that includes classical Socialists who do believe in state ownership. Meaning the state owns the means of production of society, another words no private enterprise or private sector at all. The state meaning the national government essentially owns the entire country for the benefit of the people. Those Socialists are dying off not just in America if they ever existed but in Europe and Asia as well. Even Cuba now has a form of capitalism and will benefit from that as well but those aren't just the only Socialists. Communists at leas some of them like in North Korea are Socialists when it comes to economic policy and believe. In state ownership at least some of them or to some degree but there are also Communists like in China, Vietnam and now Cuba. That believe in at least some form of capitalism while limiting social freedom for individuals. Socialism is not an economic system like Capitalism but a broader political philosophy that covers. Foreign policy, national security and social issues as well and as I've blogged before its a very diverse political philosophy. With Socialists who are Statists basically across the board, economically and socially and then you have. Socialists who are more Liberal on social issues.

The Socialists that I'm more interested in are the Democratic Socialists and the Socialist Libertarians and no thats not an Oxymoron. Or people who called themselves Socialist Liberals, Socialist on economic policy and foreign policy and Liberal on social issues. And these are the Socialist factions that support some type of capitalism but with government having a heavy hand. In the economy where its spends 50% or more of the GDP, taxes are high and heavy to finance a social insurance system. To finance the programs that they don't trust the private sector to handle to provide as well. Like in healthcare, health insurance, retirement education to use as examples with the private sector managing the rest. So companies would be private like automobiles, technology, small business's to use as examples. There would even be large corporations in a Socialist Liberal or Democratic Socialist system but there would. Be a lot of them with strong anti monopoly laws and they would be taxed and regulated heavily.

Thats the future of Socialism in America where it would be very Liberal on social issues with a lot of social freedom. Where people would even have a large degree of economic freedom as long as there's a lot of competition. And where people would be taxed to provide the services that Socialists don't trust the private sector to provide. The more social services that people have to have to live well but where anyone whose physically and mentally. Capable of working would be expected to and be able to work for private companies even, which is what's. Going on in Cuba right now, this is really the only vehicle forward for Socialists in America and I believe in Europe as well. Rather the some form of Statism where the job of government is protect people even from themselves. Where freedom economic or social would be limited for our own good which is what Progressives have a tendency to sound like now.

Socialists can even succeed in America, as long as they are Democratic Socialists or Socialist Liberals. Just look at Senator Bernie Sanders, or Elisabeth Warren or Tammy Baldwin who've all just been elected to the US Senate. And will be part of the Senate Democrats 55-45 majority in this Congress, just as long as they aren't Statists. Who believe the role of government is to protect people even from themselves instead of supporting people which is different. Thats how Socialism works in Sweden and it could work in America as far as getting people elected to Congress and other high offices.

If I was a wealthy man and I was only allowed to donate money to support one cause whatever the cause is. I would cheat and pick two, one set up a foundation to raise money to combat homelessness in America. But it wouldn't be in a traditional sense where I would support homeless shelters that give people on the street a meal and a cot. And then send them on their way the next day without the resources to start a life for themselves but I would go much further. Not homeless shelters but what I would call housing centers where yes they would get a meal and a temporary place to stay. But I wouldn't send them on their way, I would go further and empower these people to either rebuild their lives. Or start their lives period by providing them with whatever healthcare they need, to go along with long term housing. Through section eight, as well as job placement and even job training if they need it so they can get themselves a good job. Private donations would be needed to set up a private non profit like this and for it to startup and in the future as well. So it could be as effective as possible but an organization like this could also be financed through the current public assistance system.

You want to combat homelessness in America, then we have to find long term housing for the homeless and put these people to work. So they can afford their own place to live through either renting or mortgage if they really get their lives together. We don't accomplish this by giving people a place to stay for one night and a meal and then sending them back on the street. To live with no help of getting their lives on track and something like housing centers would accomplish this.